The commerce clause would have had plenty of precedent, not to mention something even Scalia supported in Gonzales v. Raich. Too bad most of the justices are "legistators by proxy" and not doing their job, which is to see if the law can be intrepreted as being within the limits set in the Constitution. And in this case, it can be.
You now have consent not to have your possessions taken by sky-high premiums because of adverse selection. Fat teasing should decrease 44%! Getting rid of administration costs will have to wait for single-payer.
I will be forced to buy insurance or pay the tax because I work. This guys chooses not to work an gets free health care. Obama! (lied)
The opinion (which both of you did not read) specifically refers to this NOT being regarded as a tax by Congress (thus why the case can be even looked at in the first place). That it is a tax according to this iteration of the Supreme Court is really down to Roberts saying it is a tax. Even the liberal justices disagree with that assertion.
I have consent to take possessions all the time, I preform liposuction. I'm in demand! (before people take me seriously, and demonstrate their lack of humor, the above is 44% true)
Thanks for the compliment! I suddenly became decades younger without realizing it was happening. Now where is a mirror... excuse me while I check for sudden hair growth and disappearing wrinkles.
As opposed to the good old days (a couple of years ago) where you paid for the guy who works and doesn't have insurance, you pay for the guy who doesn't work and doesn't have insurance *and* you deny health insurance for children with preexisting conditions and you limit lifetime health benefits. I'm through arguing with dumb ****s for the day. Carry on, jackass.
You would probably call the fish and loaves story stealing because Jesus "redistributed" the fish and loaves for all to eat.
I should not be required to pay for the insurance for those who choose not to work. Only dumbass liberals find that to be righteous.
